(a) Alternate explanation: The Mishnah can even be following R.
Yehudah; he only meant that a Nedavah which is fulfilled is
preferable, but not a Neder.

1. Question: Surely he said that most preferable is one who
makes a Neder and fulfills it?
2. Answer: Emend it to read "Nedavah."

(b) Question: Just as one should not take a Neder in case one breaks
it, so too with Nedavah there is a risk of failing to bring it?
(c) Answer: R. Yehudah holds that one can bring an animal to the Beis
HaMikdash and consecrate it and slaughter it there.
(d) Question: That works for Nedavos of Korbanos, but what about
those of Nezirus?
(e) Answer: R. Yehudah is following his view in a Beraisa:

1. (R. Yehudah) The first Chassidim wanted an excuse to bring a
Chatas, so they would take on Nezirus.
2. (R. Shimon) They did not do so, as unlike other Korbanos
which can be freely brought as a Nedavah, one who becomes a
Nazir is called a sinner.

(f) (Abayey) Shimon HaTzaddik, R. Shimon, and R. Elazar Hakapar all
agreed that a Nazir is a sinner;

1. The first two as stated above;
2. The latter as he deduced from the Pasuk that he is called a
sinner for denying himself wine.
3. Kal V'chomer one who denies himself all food is a sinner;
thus anyone who fasts is a sinner.

(g) The Torah states the term "sinner" regarding Nazir as he has both
deprived himself and has sinned by becoming Tamei.

2) MISHNAH: EXAMPLES OF KINUYIM

(a) Konam, Konach, Konas are Kinuyim for a Korban.
(b) Cherek, Cherech, Cheref are Kinuyim for a Cherem.
(c) Nazik, Nazich, Pazich are Kinuyim for Nezirus.
(d) Shevusah, Shekukah, or vowing by Mohi are Kinuyim for Shevuah.

3) THE ORIGINS OF KINNUYIM

(a) (Beraisa) There is a dispute regarding Kinuyim:
(b) (R. Yochanan) They are from non-Jewish languages.
(c) (Resh Lakish) They are special terms devised by the Chachamim
such that people wouldn't use the word Korban.

1. Question: What is wrong with saying Korban?
2. Answer: He might come to say "a Korban to Hashem."
3. Question: What's wrong with saying that?
4. Answer: He may only say "to Hashem" without "Korban," and
thus be saying it in vain, as per a Beraisa:

10b---------------------------------------10b

i. (R. Shimon) We know that one shouldn't say "for Hashem,
a Korban" as the Pasuk says that the word "Korban"
comes first.
ii. If the Torah is so careful even in a case where he
saying Hashem's Name with regard to a Korban, how much
more severe it must be to say it in vain.

(d) Suggestion: Let us say that the dispute regarding Kinuyim relates
to a dispute between Tannaim:

1. (Beis Shammai) Kinuyim of Kinuyim are binding.
2. (Beis Hillel) They are not binding.
3. Surely Beis Shammai holds they are binding because Kinuyim
are different languages, and the new Kinuyim are simply
another language; whereas Beis Hillel hold that they are
devised terms, and the new Kinuyim are not devised!?

(e) Rejection: It could be that all hold that Kinuyim are non-Jewish
languages, and the dispute is as to whether these words are also
used.
(f) Alternate explanation: The dispute could be as to whether we make
a decree on Kinuy Kinuyim.

1. Question: What about Mifchazna, Mischazna, and Misazna?
2. Question: Is Kinma a term of Konam or of the spice Kinamon?
3. Question: Is Kinah a term of Konam or of a bird's nest?
4. These questions remain.